Admiral Beez
Major
Let's not forget the smaller engines, like those from Pobjoy.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Merlin-powered Halifax II and V in Bomber Command were replaced with the Hercules-powered Halifax III as the latter had superior performance.
It wasn't about superior performance, in fact the Halifax Mk.III demonstrated only marginal performance increase over the Merlin engined B.II Series Ia, which it replaced and during official trials, in some parameters the B.III demonstrated inferior performance to the earlier model. The Mk.III was an interim and the next major variant of the Halifax was to be the B.IV, which did have a bigger performance increase over the previous versions as it had 60 Series Merlins, but it was discontinued, so the B.II Series Ia fitted with Hercules' became the main production variant. The squared fins for example were retrofitted to B.IIs as a kit to cure the rudder overbalance that plagued the type, and the removal of the nose turret was already a feature of the later Merlin engined B.IIs.
According to the Aircraft Data Sheets for the Halifax II and III available at WWII Aircraft Performance, the Halifax III had a slower climb rate at max. weight and slightly lower ceiling (20,000 ft compared to 21,000 ft), but had a higher maximum speed, higher cruising speed, higher maximum take-off weight, and better bomb carrying range (1,985 miles with 7,000 lbs of bombs and 1,986 gallons of fuel for the Halifax III compared to 1,660 miles with 5,250 lbs of bombs and 1,882 gallons of fuel for the Halifax II).
in fact the Halifax Mk.III demonstrated only marginal performance increase over the Merlin engined B.II Series Ia, which it replaced and during official trials, in some parameters the B.III demonstrated inferior performance to the earlier model.
I think along the terms of power the kind of speed that planes powered by it had and the fact that I'm a corsair fan .Leaving aside the misspellings and poor capitalization, this question requires some clarification:
1) What criteria are you using to define "best?" Lowest sfc, greatest MTBR, lowest in-flight shutdown rate, best power/weight ratio, least mechanical complexity, greatest damage tolerance, or, most likely some combination of these?
2) Can one even make a sensible comparison between engines such as the Lycoming R-680, the Rolls-Royce Merlin, and the Argus 109-014?
3) Should one look at how they influenced post-war engine design or examine their non-military uses (I'd argue "yes" for both these factors)?
In general, I believe these "what was the best..." questions are ill-posed, and this is a fairly egregious example of such.
Those planes had the R-2800, the R-2600 was a diffrent manufacturer and was used in the avengerNo fighter had the R-2600 in the early days of the U.S. at war.
The three I mentioned upthread gave the US time to develop the R-2600 into the F6F, F4U and P-47.
Went all the way back to July to quote this, yet in your time travel, you passed over this post that was shortly after:No fighter had the R-2600 in the early days of the U.S. at war.
The three I mentioned upthread gave the US time to develop the R-2600 into the F6F, F4U and P-47.
lol...yep, was supposed to be R-2800.
I can't even blame spell-check on that
What metric(s) were used to determine this? Not questioning the validity of your statement, I just want to learn more about the Mosquito's war record...you were referring to the Mosquito, correct?It powered the premier night fighter of WWII
But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do thatWhat metric(s) were used to determine this? Not questioning the validity of your statement, I just want to learn more about the Mosquito's war record...you were referring to the Mosquito, correct?
Correct the American enengines used a pressurized carburetor to allow fuel to flow under all flight characteristicsBut the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that
Between that and the over 2000hp rating i would say it was the bestCorrect the American enengines used a pressurized carburetor to allow fuel to flow under all flight characteristics
Russian and German radials were also offshoots of the Cyclone series, though developed in their own waysFor me,
The 2800 series in a radial, but the Packard built Merlin in a inline. Packard corrected some of the Rolls Royce Merlin issues.
The Wright 1820's took the war to Berlin, so there is that, and many of them came back missing cylinders yet still ran and returned their crew safely. There is also a strong case to be made for the BMW 801 radial, and the DB 605.This also brings the question how do we not over look the 2600 series or the Allison V-1710? Finely we have the metric P&W aka Sakae - 12. So as you can see many power plants were used and benefited the country of origin greatly, it's really hard to pinpoint or say favorite when you roll up your sleeves and really dive into them.
The BMW132 radial was based on the P&W R-1690.Russian and German radials were also offshoots of the Cyclone series, though developed in their own ways
Thanks, wasn't sure whichThe BMW132 radial was based on the P&W R-1690.
Sadly we couldnt take a rain check on the BoB until 1942.But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that
How many R-2800's or V-1710's were there in front line service in 1939-41? By early 1941, Fighter Command's Merlin's had been retrofitted with the Tilly Orifice, negating the concern.But the merlin early in the war couldnt do high g or neg g flying and it could't be used upside down the R-2800 and even the V-1710 didnt do that